Reform UK discussion

[contrex]

Dragging all the activists down there makes it look like he is worried that he might not do as well as hoped. I don't think any credible poll has Nigel Losing in Clacton.

Perhaps, although at least in the things I see my local Reform Branch saying online it all has an air of "he's alright for one of those" to it. In the way that suggests to me they would prefer it if it wasn't someone Gay.

Kinda the same thing you often see some of the more Racist end of the Reform membership saying about Zia Yusuf as well.

My father, a rabid Powellite, told me that the Nigerian who bought his house in Herne Hill in 1972, to turn into flats, was 'all right for one of those'. I think the twenty thousand pounds he paid helped.

 

[dgl]

When you have a lot of men idolising a "powerful" man then there has to be some gay undertones somewhere, and I reckon for some the anti LGBTQIA+ stuff is just them trying to hide their real sexuality as they think it will make them look weak/an outcast.

 

[AlterEgo]

When you have a lot of men idolising a "powerful" man then there has to be some gay undertones somewhere

What an enlightened viewpoint.

 

[D1537]

When you have a lot of men idolising a "powerful" man then there has to be some gay undertones somewhere, and I reckon for some the anti LGBTQIA+ stuff is just them trying to hide their real sexuality as they think it will make them look weak/an outcast.

I don't think it's even that complicated. A lot of Reform councillors and supporters are simply bigots, whether that bigotry be against non-whites, immigrants, homosexual or transgender people, basically anyone different from themselves. The fact that a minority of them may fall into those categories is irrelevant; for example, how many of Thatcher's Tory party were homosexual and yet voted happily for Section 28?

 

[brad465]

Well if Clacton doesn't work out for Binface he might be able to try in Boston & Skegness soon:

Richard Tice investigated by parliamentary standards watchdog

Reform's deputy leader is being investigated about an allegation he failed to declare an interest.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice is being investigated by the parliamentary standards watchdog over an allegation he failed to declare an interest.

The investigation was opened on Tuesday 28 July and was published on the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner website on Monday.

The watchdog says Tice is being investigated under Rule 6 of its code of conduct - a failure to declare an interest.

Reform UK have been approached for comment.

 

[edwin_m]

Yusuf on Radio 4 this morning was claiming a Reform government would just dump immigrants back on the beaches in France and the French would have to look after them because they follow the ECHR and we would have left.

Reform says it would use Royal Navy to stop small boats

The party's home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf says it would be the "largest military operation in the English Channel since World War Two”.

www.bbc.co.uk

It would see Royal Navy vessels intercept all migrant boats in the Channel as part of a humanitarian response.

Yusuf described the scheme as "humanitarian missions" and insisted it would be compatible with rules under the European Convention on Human Rights as Article 2 protects the right to life.

International conventions on the sea allow for states to pick people up from boats if they are in danger of being lost but do not allow for them to be taken to another country without that nation's consent.

Yusuf accepted that the UK and France may have "a diplomatic argument" if French authorities were to refuse to accept migrants escorted back to its shores, but insisted they have a "commitment under international law" to process migrants.

 

[35B]

Yusuf on Radio 4 this morning was claiming a Reform government would just dump immigrants back on the beaches in France and the French would have to look after them because they follow the ECHR and we would have left.

Reform says it would use Royal Navy to stop small boats

The party's home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf says it would be the "largest military operation in the English Channel since World War Two”.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wow, just wow. They are subject to international law, but as we won't be subject to that law we'll dump our responsibilities on them.

Setting aside that this is both immoral and illegal, how on earth will it work even on its own terms? Even if British vessels are allowed into French waters, the invitation to the French to retaliate in ways that will hurt Reform's constituency is so wide open as to be ridiculous. I see bans on fish and beef, and really onerous customs enforcement, coming down the track

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yusuf on Radio 4 this morning was claiming a Reform government would just dump immigrants back on the beaches in France and the French would have to look after them because they follow the ECHR and we would have left.

You can always rely on Yusuf to chuck a dead cat on the table whenever the Obergruppenfuhrer is struggling to answer questions from those awful bullying journalists.

 

[brad465]

Nice to see Yusuf at least subliminally acknowledges the ECHR is not a barrier to dealing with illegal immigrants.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Wow, just wow. They are subject to international law, but as we won't be subject to that law we'll dump our responsibilities on them.

Setting aside that this is both immoral and illegal, how on earth will it work even on its own terms? Even if British vessels are allowed into French waters, the invitation to the French to retaliate in ways that will hurt Reform's constituency is so wide open as to be ridiculous. I see bans on fish and beef, and really onerous customs enforcement, coming down the track

Not just France but the whole EU.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

I think we need to put asylum seekers somewhere that means top Reform politicians won't come across them, somewhere like Clacton perhaps?

 

[Killingworth]

Nevertheless, much as the majority on here detests Reform and Restore Britain we would be negligent to ignore the logic that drives the desire to repel apparent invaders, especially when they appear to be successful in large numbers. It is curious, of course, to note that many of the most vehemently opposed to immigrants are themselves beneficiaries of previous waves of immigration.

But we have bigger issues than the rubber boats. Once they get here what do we do with their occupants? A few are eventually granted leave to remain but that right is increasingly coming under pressure. It seems the majority coming in boats will not be removed and will remain in limbo indefinitely. As will many others who arrived legitimately but have outstayed the conditions of their entry.

We need to track the boats back to their places of manufacture and seize the lot - or buy them all! If only it was that simple! As simple as putting them all on a ferry and dumping them on the quay at Calais or Dunkirk.

Meanwhile we have many thousands of mostly young men with no legitimate way to earn their keep. Is it any wonder that many will be tempted into low level crime, and a few to worse?

The mainstream traditional parties haven't found good answers that work. As Spain has just discovered wiping the slate clean for hundreds of thousands has attracted many more. Hand wringing is not a solution, but what is?

 

[AlterEgo]

But we have bigger issues than the rubber boats. Once they get here what do we do with their occupants? A few are eventually granted leave to remain

Most of them are, actually.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Most of them are, actually.

Does the data break down applicants by method of arrival?

 

[AlterEgo]

Does the data break down applicants by method of arrival?

Since 2018, 95% of the people arriving on a small boat have claimed asylum. Of the 178,845 small boat arrivals claiming asylum since 2018, almost three-quarters (74% or 132,894) had received a substantive decision on their claim. Of these, 79,589 were granted asylum or some other protection status and 53,305 were refused (Table 1).

How many small boat arrivals have claimed asylum or been referred to the National Referral Mechanism?

www.gov.uk

60% have been granted leave.

 

[35B]

Nevertheless, much as the majority on here detests Reform and Restore Britain we would be negligent to ignore the logic that drives the desire to repel apparent invaders, especially when they appear to be successful in large numbers. It is curious, of course, to note that many of the most vehemently opposed to immigrants are themselves beneficiaries of previous waves of immigration.

But we have bigger issues than the rubber boats. Once they get here what do we do with their occupants? A few are eventually granted leave to remain but that right is increasingly coming under pressure. It seems the majority coming in boats will not be removed and will remain in limbo indefinitely. As will many others who arrived legitimately but have outstayed the conditions of their entry.

We need to track the boats back to their places of manufacture and seize the lot - or buy them all! If only it was that simple! As simple as putting them all on a ferry and dumping them on the quay at Calais or Dunkirk.

Meanwhile we have many thousands of mostly young men with no legitimate way to earn their keep. Is it any wonder that many will be tempted into low level crime, and a few to worse?

The mainstream traditional parties haven't found good answers that work. As Spain has just discovered wiping the slate clean for hundreds of thousands has attracted many more. Hand wringing is not a solution, but what is?

Except that Spain didn't discover that, and the vast majority of the influx in Ceuta have returned home. One might wonder what prompted this influx

 

[SargeNpton]

Except that Spain didn't discover that, and the vast majority of the influx in Ceuta have returned home. One might wonder what prompted this influx

Obviously organised, but none of the news reports I have seen have made any attempt to explain who was behind it. Whoever did organise it has at least 34 deaths on their hands.

 

[brad465]

Except that Spain didn't discover that, and the vast majority of the influx in Ceuta have returned home. One might wonder what prompted this influx

The influx was far too large and sudden I think to not have been deliberately coordinated. The prime theory is Moroccan authorities did it due to being upset at Spain thawing relations with Algeria. The very cynical reason is the US and/or Israel helped the Moroccan authorities do it because the former two don't like the Spanish Government's position on their Middle East policy.

 

[edwin_m]

Except that Spain didn't discover that, and the vast majority of the influx in Ceuta have returned home. One might wonder what prompted this influx

Saturday's Guardian had a long article (quoted from paper copy):

...taken advantage of a decision by Spain's supreme court, which recently ruled that those intercepted at sea while trying to enter Ceuta ... could not be summarily returned...

...the government would erect a visible barrier - a line of buoys - near the breakwater at Ceuta's Tarajal beach to make it clear where the border was, to comply with the court's ruling.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Obviously organised, but none of the news reports I have seen have made any attempt to explain who was behind it.

Israeli-backed think tanks were, back in April, suggesting that Morocco could and should use Ceuta and Melilla as a way of 'punishing' Spain for criticising Israel. YNet, a large Israeli media conglomerate, had this to say:

Spain finds itself diplomatically isolated at precisely the moment its most exposed territorial possessions lack a legal defense guarantee. The Abraham Accords created a framework for reconfiguring Middle Eastern and North African alliances in ways that serve American and Israeli interests simultaneously. Helping Morocco recover Ceuta and Melilla would serve that framework and punish a NATO member that has repeatedly chosen obstruction over partnership at the alliance's most critical juncture. For Israel, amplifying Morocco's claim is not charity. It is strategic investment in the partner that, across the Strait of Gibraltar, holds the key to one of the world's most vital maritime chokepoints.

Abraham Accords reach the Strait: how Israel can help Morocco reclaim its north

Analysis: US-Spain tensions over NATO, Iran create opening for Morocco to press claims on Ceuta and Melilla, with Israel positioned to back Rabat diplomatically within US-led alliance that increasingly favors cooperative partners over European holdouts

www.ynetnews.com

And Israel's envoy to the UN piped up on Friday:

Diplomatic tensions flared between Spain and Israel on Friday after Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon slammed the Spanish government for its handling of the country’s migrant crisis, prompting backlash in Madrid and a public rebuke from Israel’s top diplomat in Spain.

“Spain, which never misses an opportunity to lecture Israel, has declared a state of emergency in Ceuta following the crisis over its immigration policy,” Danon wrote on X. “Maybe before it continues lecturing us, it’s time it explained to the world why it still maintains colonial enclaves in Africa.”

Israel’s UN envoy sparks Spain spat with accusation of ‘colonial enclaves’ in Africa

Danon's criticism over Ceuta migrant crisis fuels conspiracy theories accusing Jerusalem of helping orchestrate incursion and draws a rebuke from Israel's ambassador in Madrid

www.timesofisrael.com

Morocco uses the border as a weapon, the last time they did it was when the Spanish allowed the leader of the Polisario Front to receive medical treatment in Spain in 2020. I can't for one second imagine that Morocco would have done it again without the blessing of their single most important military ally- Israel.

The media are curiously uncurious about where all these people suddenly came from. They always are when it comes to Israel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2026 ==

The mainstream traditional parties haven't found good answers that work. As Spain has just discovered wiping the slate clean for hundreds of thousands has attracted many more. Hand wringing is not a solution, but what is?

If you don't have allow any legal methods of migration then you just get illegal migration instead. With the added bonus that you don't get to vet any of the people who arrive illegally, it is literally a case of survival of the fittest.

This is the fundamental issue with all this performative cruelty: it doesn't work.

The vast majority of people arriving by small boat have arrived from exactly the countries you would expect them to: Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Eritrea, Sudan, and Vietnam. Migration Watch UK have a heat map on their website and it demonstrates the issue perfectly. It is a who's who of some of the most dangerous and unstable countries on the entire planet. No wonder people are fleeing. If I lived there I'd be fleeing.

Now if we had legal ways of people from those countries moving to the UK for protection then we would be able to control it and we would be able to vet them. But we don't. You can't get to the UK from any of those countries legally. So they don't come legally and, because they don't come legally, we don't know who they are.

At least we have some idea with the small boats arrivals. Lots of people being smuggled here don't show up in statistics because the people who smuggled them here don't want them to show up on the authorities' radar. This is particularly with the case of young Vietnamese women who are smuggled here: the lucky ones get to be slaves in nail bars or brow bars, the unlucky ones, well.

Better still, if we didn't spend our entire time raining bombs down on those countries maybe they wouldn't need to flee in the first place. Lots of people are fleeing from Iran, you say? If only Donald Trump could explain what might be making them run away, eh?

That said, I remain sceptical about how much of an issue this really is. 200,000 in ten years sounds a lot. Maybe it is. But, for context, in 2019 Turkey had 3,600,000 Syrian refugees living in its territory. It probably still does, but I can't find figures to support it.

 

[Yew]

Better still, if we didn't spend our entire time raining bombs down on those countries maybe they wouldn't need to flee in the first place.

I don't really think that the majority of those arrivals substantiate that hypothesis. Syria was largely a civil war, as was Sudan. Afghanistan was a long time ago, and more due to the resurgance of the very people that we set about deposing, due to the US deciding to pull out at short notice. Anyone seriously suggesting that a modern Vietnamese refugee is coming here as a direct consequence of a war that ended over 50 years ago simply cannot be being serious.

 

[dgl]

I wonder how many naval commanders would follow a request to patrol the channel for immigrants given that, a, they might be compassionate and b, might be worried that in the future they could be prosecuted for their actions once the reform lot were booted out for poor performance.
Anyway if they lost support form the armed forces then their time in power would be over anyway.

 

[35B]

I wonder how many naval commanders would follow a request to patrol the channel for immigrants given that, a, they might be compassionate and b, might be worried that in the future they could be prosecuted for their actions once the reform lot were booted out for poor performance.
Anyway if they lost support form the armed forces then their time in power would be over anyway.

And if any government were to fall because it lost the support of the armed forces, that would be a very serious situation indeed.

 

[dgl]

And if any government were to fall because it lost the support of the armed forces, that would be a very serious situation indeed.

Quite, though in the countries that it has happened they were already very unstable, it would be interesting, though very much not desirable, to find out what would happen if it did happen here.

 

[Purple Train]

It is a dangerous and unworkable plan, but that's Reform for you. Strange how they are extremely quiet about the Dublin Agreement...

 

[brad465]

Turns out even Christopher Harborne may have been lied to by Farage as well:

Nigel Farage says he discussed politics return ahead of general election

Farage said the talks came "quite some time after" he received a £5m gift from a Reform donor.

www.bbc.co.uk

Nigel Farage has told the BBC he discussed the "potential liabilities" of returning to politics before the 2024 general election.

It comes after The Sunday Times, external reported Farage had negotiated a deal in March and April 2024 with then-Reform leader Richard Tice to return to lead the party.

Farage confirmed he spoke with Tice in spring 2024 to scope out what would happen to Reform's finances if he returned but said it "wasn't a deal, it wasn't an agreement", adding that talks came "quite some time after" he received a £5m gift from a billionaire donor.

Labour said Farage's remarks had "blown a gaping hole" in his argument for not declaring the gift after becoming an MP in July 2024.

Farage has repeatedly argued the £5m from British cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne was an "unconditional gift", was intended for his personal security, "wasn't political in any sense at all" and he was not an MP when he received it.

Reform's opponents have said he should have declared it in the MPs' register of interests when he was elected to Parliament.

The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner was investigating whether Farage broke the rules, but the process was suspended when he stood down as Clacton MP last month to force a by-election.

Farage said he took this decision as the "people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions". The investigation will be resumed if Farage wins the by-election, which is taking place on 13 August.

Farage left frontline politics in 2021 and embarked on a broadcasting career.

In May 2024, Farage was serving as Reform's honorary president but announced he would not be standing as a candidate in the general election in July of that year.

He reversed this position at the beginning of June and took over the leadership of the party.

Appearing at a press conference on Monday, Farage was asked if he had negotiated a deal on what would happen to Reform's finances if he came back as leader - in light of the report in The Sunday Times.

He replied: "I had no intention of returning to politics or as leader of Reform, but in the spring of that year I did talk to Richard Tice about what the liabilities would be if I was to come back to that position.

"And you'd be a bit of a mug, wouldn't you, to walk into a job and not find out what the potential liabilities were, and they were substantial.

"But without Richard, the party wouldn't have even survived, so that was useful for me to know. But it wasn't a deal, it wasn't an agreement, it was subject to if I came back."

He added: "If you want clarification on this, that came quite some time after the gift, which is perhaps the important point."

Bridget Phillipson, chair of the Labour Party, said: "Nigel Farage has blown a gaping hole in his excuse for why his secret £5m 'gift' from a crypto billionaire did not need to be declared."

The Commons code of conduct states that new MPs "must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election".

The rules say "purely personal gifts or benefits" from family or commercial loans would not normally have to be registered.

The rules also say "both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered", adding "if there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered".

A full list of the candidates standing in the Clacton by-election can be found here.

 

[The Ham]

That said, I remain sceptical about how much of an issue this really is. 200,000 in ten years sounds a lot. Maybe it is. But, for context, in 2019 Turkey had 3,600,000 Syrian refugees living in its territory. It probably still does, but I can't find figures to support it.

The problem with big numbers like 200,000 is that given that it's a subset of a much bigger number (62 million, that being the population of England and Wales).

To put that into a more easy to understand context.

For a small town with 10,000 people in it then in the last 10 years 33 people (32.26 to be exact) would have come here.

Even this would need context, in that the town in that time would have grown by 664 people.

In terms of extra housing that would have required about 28 new homes a year bringing the total to 4,167 homes in the town.

Or to put it into an even smaller context. A secondary school with 4 classes per year group (600 children in the school) would have seen 2 new pupils added over a 10 year period.

As such, it's that school had an issue with bullying, it's unlikely to be an issue solely caused by those 2 new pupils.

 

[35B]

The problem with big numbers like 200,000 is that given that it's a subset of a much bigger number (62 million, that being the population of England and Wales).

To put that into a more easy to understand context.

For a small town with 10,000 people in it then in the last 10 years 33 people (32.26 to be exact) would have come here.

Even this would need context, in that the town in that time would have grown by 664 people.

In terms of extra housing that would have required about 28 new homes a year bringing the total to 4,167 homes in the town.

Or to put it into an even smaller context. A secondary school with 4 classes per year group (600 children in the school) would have seen 2 new pupils added over a 10 year period.

As such, it's that school had an issue with bullying, it's unlikely to be an issue solely caused by those 2 new pupils.

All true, and important. But the flip side of that is that the impact of change is not evenly spread, especially if the population change is not constant.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't really think that the majority of those arrivals substantiate that hypothesis. Syria was largely a civil war, as was Sudan. Afghanistan was a long time ago

I don't think we can so easily dismiss our involvement in Syria and Sudan. In Sudan one of the insurgents are being bankrolled by the UAE and are being supplied with British and Western weaponry. In Syria we voted against direct action but, again, insurgents were (and still are) supplied both directly and indirectly with British and Western weaponry and expertise.

Afghanistan wasn't a long time ago (and nor was Iraq) but just repeats the age-old theme: the US and UK go wading in, smash everything up, have no plans to deal with the aftermath, then eventually wander off bored. The Afghans who took the Americans and the British at their word got left behind; look at how the British military airlifted animals out then objected to bringing out the humans who'd worked with them. We've now seen the same in Syria: the Kurds who worked with the US to get rid of ISIS have been left behind and left to their own devices.

On the subject of Afghanistan, the SAS even wrongly rejected 2,000 asylum claims from people they knew had been fighting with them and would be left in mortal danger after they'd left.

Special Forces rejected 2,000 credible asylum claims from Afghan commandos, MoD confirms

Officers appear to have rejected every application from former Afghan commandos who fought alongside them.

www.bbc.co.uk

UK Special Forces command rejected resettlement applications from more than 2,000 Afghan commandos who had shown credible evidence of service in units that fought alongside the SAS and SBS, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed for the first time.

UK Special Forces officers appear to have rejected every application from a former Afghan commando referred to them for sponsorship, despite the Afghan units having fought with the British on life-threatening missions against the Taliban.

The MoD had previously denied there was a blanket policy to reject members of the units - known as the Triples - but the BBC has not been able to find any evidence that UK Special Forces (UKSF) supported any resettlement applications.

They then accidentally leaked the details of 33,000 people who worked with them. The Taliban used it as a hit list.

The cynic in me observes that dead people can't be called to give evidence at a war crimes tribunal.

But we do all this and then we wonder why these people make their own transportation arrangements to get out of these countries.

But the flip side of that is that the impact of change is not evenly spread, especially if the population change is not constant.

The irony remains that the areas with the strongest Reform support are the areas where the impact of migration is the least. People in Reform heartlands are overwhelmingly both white and born in the UK.

These people are pumped full of scare stories about the towns where migration does have more of an impact, stories about how you'll get stabbed to death by a migrant on the platform at Kings Cross if you ever go up to Londonistan. They don't go to London so all they can do is go off the news, and the news is pumping them full of fear.

Of course Reform then try and argue that they're not very successful in more multicultural areas because the "Muslim vote" is all fraudulent. We saw that in the Denton by-election, apparently they lost because there was systematic electoral fraud. All those Muslims didn't vote for a party which was promising to deport them and it was definitely a sign of fraud that they didn't.

 

[35B]

The irony remains that the areas with the strongest Reform support are the areas where the impact of migration is the least. People in Reform heartlands are overwhelmingly both white and born in the UK.

These people are pumped full of scare stories about the towns where migration does have more of an impact, stories about how you'll get stabbed to death by a migrant on the platform at Kings Cross if you ever go up to Londonistan. They don't go to London so all they can do is go off the news, and the news is pumping them full of fear.

Of course Reform then try and argue that they're not very successful in more multicultural areas because the "Muslim vote" is all fraudulent. We saw that in the Denton by-election, apparently they lost because there was systematic electoral fraud. All those Muslims didn't vote for a party which was promising to deport them and it was definitely a sign of fraud that they didn't.

If you assume that the dislike of migration is solely to do with skin colour, then that's credible. But the success of Reform in places like Boston reflects the disruptive effect of migration from EU nations in central and Eastern Europe, which has had a visible and audible impact on the area. Large scale migration is something they have experience of, and which has disproportionately impacted those in the community that research shows are also especially likely to vote for Reform.